Testing out the platform I was running on both a developer account and a Trial Business Pro account until I purchased a standard plan.
Up until I purchased the standard plan, envelope statuses would update by the second and the functionality built with the Apex Toolkit was working well.
Once changing to the standard paid plan, envelopes statuses take 10-15 minutes to update and some functionality is not working.
My question is:
Do the different plans have different status updating times in Salesforce?
Is functionality of the Apex Toolkit limited between the different plans?
Does the Connect option (which is missing now) have anything to do with the above?
Thanks!
They do not. Writeback to Salesforce takes place via DocuSign Connect. Some plans don't support Connect out of the box but the actual writeback times / delays do not differ between account plan types.
Indirectly, the only way that a plan type can interfere with an API call that worked on another plan type is if it had entitlement to a feature that your new plan does not, IE: The ability to allow Comments, to set recipient signing language, to set envelopeID Stamp Control, etc...
I would highly suspect that it does -- in fact I'm a little surprised that your writebacks are happening at all if you don't have Connect enabled. Salesforce adds an object reference IE: Opportunity / AccountIds to the envelope's custom fields on send. When Connect sees these fields, it knows to write back to that specific object. Without Connect enabled and configured it shouldn't be able to process these writebacks at all.
I think you should have a conversation with your Account Rep first regarding Connect entitlement, then you can reconnect your Salesforce instances to the updated DocuSign account which is something that we can help you with.
Regards,
Matt
Related
I'm hoping that someone here can assist me with this issue. Stripe support has been underwhelming thus far.
We have a Primary Stripe Account setup in the US
We have customers that will be based out of MX that will connect to the US accounts.
From what we understand here: https://stripe.com/docs/connect/cross-border-payouts there are 2 main criteria that need to occur
We need to make these accounts "Custom"
We need to use the "recipient" option for the account's service agreement.
We also cannot request any other "Capabilities" such as "Card Payments" when setting this up.
Moreover, we have noticed that the moment we use the "Custom" option with Recipient agreement, customers do not have the ability to "Sign In" to their existing Stripe accounts even if they have one. The system always forces them to go through a "new" account setup process. Per Stripe, we are responsible for managing everything including verification of the customer and the customer is NEVER aware of the Stripe account's existence. This has been a hard pill to swallow for some of our larger customers who already have a Stripe account.
Say, we overcome that objection, and say people create new accounts. Now, we're running into a whole new series of problems.
We understand that Stripe requires us to perform separate charges and transfers. Great, we use transfer groups and transfer destination.
However, we also want to use the on_behalf_of parameter so that we attribute the transaction to the connected account for reasons explained here: https://stripe.com/docs/connect/charges-transfers#on-behalf-of
This is where the fun starts. It appears that if you use on_behalf_of, you cannot use "Automatic Payment Methods".
If you specify "card" as a manual payment method type, it will tell you:
You cannot create a charge with the on_behalf_of parameter set to a connected account with transfers but without the card_payments capability enabled.
However, the kicker is that we cannot request card_payments capability for the custom/restricted accounts. So this is a catch22.
So now, we cannot use On Behalf, and essentially, we're acting as the account of record, which is raising alarms in our accounting department.
In addition to that, our customers want to use OXXO, understandably so. This works fine in DEV mode, but when we enable Production, it tells us:
This payment method (oxxo) is not activated for the account specified in on_behalf_of. You can only create testmode oxxo PaymentIntents. You can learn more about this here https://support.stripe.com/questions/i-am-having-trouble-activating-a-payment-method
So, essentially, we are unable to use OXXO w/ or w/o on_behalf.
This makes us think if there are better ways to resolve this issue. We have been trying to get through to Stripe support and their responses have been circular, almost meaningless as they keep pointing us to the documentation and we keep poking holes in their documentation.
Am I missing something here? Looking to see if someone else has had these issues.
Cross-border Payouts as a feature allows US platforms to transfer funds around the world in more countries than Stripe officially in. For example you can accept payments from a customer on your platform and then sends funds to a connected account based in South Africa or South Korea even though Stripe doesn't (at the time of this answer) support those countries for payments.
The overall feature relies on a different type of "agreement" between you and the individual/business you are sending funds to. To do that you have to explicitly set recipient as the service_agreement parameter.
When you go down that path, you can not use on_behalf_of at all. Using on_behalf_of changes a lot of things such as where the payment is being "made from" which Stripe documents here. For that to happen in South Korea or South Africa, Stripe would have to be able to operate and accept payments there. But they can't, and that's why Cross-border Payouts exist in the first place: to let you send funds in countries where Stripe doesn't yet operate. So not using on_behalf_of is entirely expected.
Now, if you don't use on_behalf_of, what you are really doing here is accepting payments yourself, on your US account, through the US. So this limits you to the payment method types that Stripe supports for US accounts. This means you can not use Oxxo for Mexican customers or Konbini for Japanese one. This is a limitation that Stripe likely will lift over time but it's not available today. For example you can accept a lot of European payment methods from the US now which wasn't possible in 2019. In the future, those things will get easier, it's just not the case now.
What I don't fully understand, is why you would go down that path. You clearly say you don't want to be the "merchant of record", you want to do local acquiring, etc. My read is that you simply want to use Destination charges with on_behalf_of. This is supported from US platform to a MX account already. This is something Stripe already supports by default with the "default" services agreement.
While I tried to help with my knowledge, this is really something you have to discuss with Stripe's own support team. They are the only ones that can look at your account details, discuss your business model and understand if they can support you.
Good day to all,
In the context of my project, we integrated Docusign to SAP Ariba CLM (contract Lifecycle management).
We are using the esignature task in our contract workspaces.
Once all parties have signed the contract in Docusign, it takes hours for the esignature task status to move from "signing" to "signed" in Ariba. It also takes hours for the contract signed PDF to be pushed from Docusign to the contract workspace in Ariba.
I have already worked with other esignature providers (for instance AdobeSign) and the update of the signature status took 5 minutes at most.
I think we need to change the esignature status refresh frequency but i'd like to know where this would be done. In Ariba ? or in the DocuSign Account ?
Many thanks for your insights and my apologies for my question phrased with simple words. I'm functional, not technical.
screenshot of the Ariba-Docusign integration configuration
Signature status and document could be transmitted by Docusign to Ariba either through API request or a Connect configuration. You would need to verify what has been implemented.
In the 1st case, it would mean to change the frequency when Ariba makes his API call against Docusign to check the envelope status. If you are in this situation, you should contact SAP support to operate this change.
In the 2nd case, you would need to verify if Connect configuration uses aggregate or SIM (Send Individual Messages) mode. When using aggregate mode, messages are not systematically sent to the 3rd party as soon as a Docusign event occurs, but an algorithm will wait to aggregate several messages together, and could explain the delay you observe
If you are in this situation, you should open a support case to Docusign if you need further help.
The default refresh interval for syncing the task status is 120 minutes. You can create a support request with SAP Ariba to have this updated to be more frequent (the minimum is 30 minutes).
I was testing Stripe APIs for Connect custom accounts, but for some reason, I keep getting pending verification. I tried to follow docs step by step, and I used testing tokens for account onboarding, created Person object, and uploaded testing files that need to be verified on the dashboard. Without verification, I cannot test payouts. I must have missed extra steps, but I was not able to figure it out. Does anyone know how to make it verified for testing?
I have one more question to make sure that I am not misunderstanding the custom account. Can the platform make a custom account have a direct charge instead of a destination charge? And if possible, is liability for returns and disputes still on platform?
You can check the account's requirements.currently_due hash, it tells you what information are needed to keep the account enabled. You should also use Connect Onboarding to collect the necessary info.
Technically you can create Direct Charge on custom connect accounts. However, it's not recommended. Because:
There's no Dashboard for custom account to address disputes
There's no Dashboard for custom account to set Radar rules
Refunds for Direct Charges on connected account will results in negative balance, which platform needs to cover
I want to create a platform which will provide a digital service where the customers and connected accounts will be from around the world. Clearly Stripe Connect is the Stripe product to use.
Because many of the connected accounts will be overseas this straight away rules out the use of transfers - unless I explored setting up separate platform accounts in the different overseas countries. (https://stripe.com/docs/connect/capabilities-overview#cross-border-transfers)
So I am left with destination charges where I choose the connected account as the settlement merchant via the on_behalf_of parameter. This means the charge goes against the connected account but I can still make money by charging an application fee.
As the connected account will be invisible to the end customer on the platform it seems inappropriate for the connected account's details to show on the customer's bank / credit card statement. Instead I want the platform's details to show.
Stripe support have assured me it is possible to have only the platform's details. Indeed this part of the API suggests I can control the statement descriptor which shows - https://stripe.com/docs/api/checkout/sessions/create#create_checkout_session-payment_intent_data-statement_descriptor
But another article - https://stripe.com/docs/api/checkout/sessions/create#create_checkout_session-payment_intent_data-statement_descriptor - seems to almost contradict this. It explains
Any additional information that’s displayed on a customer’s statement
is also provided by the same account that provides the static
component (business address, phone number).
Can anybody clarify? Many thanks in advance.
Update
This article appears to settle the matter - https://stripe.com/docs/payments/connected-accounts
Guess I will just have to inform users on my website with a connected account that their details will show on the bank statement.
Some time ago, it was commonplace for smartphone apps to open a browser to a registration page with a CAPTCHA, or to require separate signup via web, because API signup was seen as vulnerable.
Now most apps seem to offer registration via native form, though endpoints for this are usually not documented in their public API. I haven't seen many reports of this being abused to create spam accounts.
How is this done? Is there a standard crypto/handshake process to verify real signups, or does signup typically rely on undocumented endpoints and simple API key passing?
Embedding yields a better experience but has the issue you mention. Yes, the service owners on the other end are still worried about this and combating the problem. And undocumented APIs don't help and the service owners know this.
One of the tools in the toolbox these days is keys assigned to devices which can be used for throttling. This would essentially let you limit the amt of service that can be consumed on a per device basis and it would require you have a device (or can steal the key from one) in order to provide service. So long as the process to issue keys to new devices is strong (a solvable problem) then you can offer a CAPTCHA-free signup experience within the confines of what you are willing to give to a device.
I'd also note that there are other well known approaches you can use, like IP throttling and handshakes with other service providers (like a phone carrier). Depending upon the problem domain these are on the table too...